Collapse of Empires! Fall of Dynasties!

[Exile]

This thread has been created in order to elicit ideas on a specific topic. That topic is; Decline of Empires.

In Civ2, internal empire-building is all usually one way. Up. You build improvements and, unless an external enemy takes your city, it never goes away. Oh, You might have money problems occasionally, if you're not watching too close, and sometimes people get testy, but at no point do they ever consider establising a kingdom of their own. At no point will a general in the field decide to rebel and march with his forces on the capital. At no point does the process of regional political fragmentation occur. This process is an integral part of empire formation. Doesn't matter whether one is talking about the Akkadians or the Turks; regional political fragmentation broke apart every single empire that has ever been created. Some didn't last much longer than a generation.

But that doesn't happen in Civ2. The governor of far-off Denver or Dover or Danishmend never once thinks about defying your central authority and declaring himself the new caliph/sultan/presidente, and raising a howling army of soldiers. No. And I, for one, don't like it.

So then . . . how can we make it happen?

The idea I had was to use an event to place random barbarian unit/s at various places all over the map. The barb unit would be called "Internal Revolt" or something of the sort, would have little or possibly no movement, and appear principally in cities. The "random" number input in the event schedule could be set variably, depending on how "restless" the particular natives in the region were. Very high in low trouble areas, very low in unruly regions/cities. These internal revolts, being barbs, would effect any empire that happened to own the place/city.

So far, that is the limit of my imagination.

Does anyone else have ideas?

[techumseh]

Absolutely. Use the 'GiveTechnology' event to make key wonders obsolete, reducing happiness, production, research and income as desired.

The same thing can be done to make strong units obsolete and replace them with weaker ones. A human player can still produce obsolete units as long as he doesn't change production in his cities, so Leonardo's Workshop would have to be used to convert all of the obsolete units.

And you could also do a lot by changing the Rules Text file in mid-game. But that would require bat. files...

[Henrik]

Barbarian Units can't be created in player owned cities (unless in multiplayer mode in which case empty cities can get foreign units via events, strangely enough).

A thought though, would be to use nukes for this (having polution as unrest or something similar)...
This would also mean that cities with high pop or production would cause unrest in surounding terrain from time to time (Nuclear plants could be some kind of slave improvement in ancient times, with slave rebelions in case the city revolts (nuclear meltdown))...
However it'd be nice if after a city is nuked there'd be a unit there to take controll of it as well...
Then again that might not work out well at all ;-)

[techumseh]

Sorry, I was looking at the title more than the contents. Still it might be of some use. If you have Test of Time, you might want to have a look at how I handled this in Red October. http://www.tecumseh.150m.com/

The problem was to have the Polish state come into existance upon the defeat of the Central Powers in November 1918, 12 turns into the game. A Polish settler was placed in a remote ocean square, inaccessable to naval units. The Central Powers were given the Leonardo's wonder (renamed the Social Democratic Party). At the time of the armistice, they were given technologies which turned all their units into very weak 'deserter' units.

The same turn, strong Polish units were created by events adjacent to all the future Polish cities, along with a 'make aggression' event. Using ToT events language a mask was created to prevent negotiation between Poland and the Central Powers. This was changed one turn later by a 'Negotiator' event which then allowed a Polish-Central Powers treaty - after the Poles had captured all their target cities. The result is a new and powerful state is created where none existed the previous turn.

[winterfritz]

Originally posted by Exile
The idea I had was to use an event to place random barbarian unit/s at various places all over the map. The barb unit would be called "Internal Revolt" or something of the sort, would have little or possibly no movement, and appear principally in cities. The "random" number input in the event schedule could be set variably, depending on how "restless" the particular natives in the region were. Very high in low trouble areas, very low in unruly regions/cities. These internal revolts, being barbs, would effect any empire that happened to own the place/city.

I've implemented something like this in Roma Eterna to simulate the continual problems with provincial revolts that Rome suffered during this period (268-395 AD in the scen). The only difference is that, instead of a random revolt generator as you envisaged, I put in turn-based events so that revolts would occur as they did historically.

I've also simulated the decline in military strength of Rome through a rules.txt change halfway through the scen (it happens along with the events file change), which decreases the Roman unit stats in proportion to those of Rome's enemies.

In this way, despite the fact that the Roman player is always researching tech and building units, I've tried to nonetheless decrease his strength over the period of the scen... a difficult thing to do, when most players only improve their civ throughout a scen, as you noted. I agree with you that the decline of a particular civilization/empire/dynasty is a far more difficult thing to simulate using the civ2 engine that its rise.

[H Tower]

you can make sure that the player has no money every turn by events, i imagine that city improvements would end up getting sold, and unhappiness would occur

[Kull]

Here's a few more options:

1) Start with 5 or so Civs with capital cities in known locations. Then use events to drop unbeatable (at least on offense) Barbarian units next to a capital city. When the Barbs conquer the city, the Civ will split, guaranteed. This will work, but it limits the number of usable civs and it also assumes that the Palace won't be rebuilt elsewhere (plus the "revolution" happens on a set date, so there's nothing spontaneous about this).

2) Start with less than 7 Civs and use Barbarian Wrath. The vast Barb explosions are likely to take out a capital or two (especially if you haven't been real careful), and the result will be a "civ-split"

3) Assuming that the civs in your scenario have multiple cities at the start, you could give the Palace to several of the most important cities in each civ. Again, you'd also have to start with less than 7 Civs - but this time if a civ lost ANY city with a Palace in it, then the civ would split.

[Exile]

These are all good ideas. Keep 'em coming.

[El León]

Didn't civ splits mess up events? You could possibly do an events change after the split, i guess.

[Jimmywax]

One thing that pops in my head is that you could show a state that is very strong and influential at the start but show its gradual decline. Start the Civ out as a militaristic/ expansionist and give them a strong base but no economy. When they start to expand, all the new cities will be left with minimal improvements and the improvements in the old cities will be sold as they need money. With the selling of improvements, their science will come to a halt (no new techs for units) and their economy will stagnate even more.

That might not be the effect you are looking for though.

[Henrik]

El Leon, civ splits will not affected allready loaded events (the save file makes up for civ name changes), but if someone runs delevent on the file (which you do when changing events files) then it will mess with events (that is IF the events refer to the civ which might not yet have been created/doesn't exist anymore).

[Palaiologos]

In my Roman Empire scenario, the Roman units(although many and in good strategic locations) have a tremendously high build cost(90+) making any looses irreplacable. This, along with barbarians uprisings everywhere are bound to cause a colapse around the 4th century AD.

During the resurgence of the Empire in 5th and 6th centuries, the build cost for the troops goes down in normal levels (50-60) allowing the player a "Reconquista".


By the way, this is an excellent thread in my opinion.

[Kull]

Originally posted by techumseh
If you have Test of Time, you might want to have a look at how I handled this in Red October. http://www.tecumseh.150m.com/

Wow! The creation from thin air of a powerful new civ! That was really a fantastic set of ideas.

[techumseh]

[Civfan]

anyone building a scenerio like this?

Anyone release a scenerio like this?

[Exile]

I've been toying with the idea of creating my own "Roman Centuries" scenario for some months, but it's now on hold.

The one problem I can't seem to resolve is the "Rebellious Legions" thing. At the end of the Republic period, and then again in the 4th century, Roman military forces turned against each other, marched all over the Mediterranean world, and usually finished up by marching on Rome, whereupon a new Emperor was established, and things went back to normal . . . until the next time.

I haven't yet found a way to simulate this. Until I do, I'm not going to start work on it.

Btw, the ideas in this thread WILL be used if the damn thing ever comes to fruition.

[techumseh]

If you're up for a really complex solution, you might want to look at Angelo Scotto's CPSL. It's essentially a programmable hex editor which functions during a game.

I'm pretty confident it could be programmed to change the ownership of units at a specific set of locations, under preset conditions.

Aside from Angleo himself, I think Kull is perhaps the most knowledgable about it. CPSL is available from the Cradle of Civilzation website.

[Exile]

But Brian, isn't Cradle a ToT site? I'm an MGE dude. That's what I work with.

I fear hex editing.

[techumseh]

I think CPSL works with MGE, but I'm not sure. And listen, I'm not recommending this. It's beyond anything I'd attempt myself. Just bringing it to your attention.

[The Apologist]

IMHO, it's not so much a problem with the engine, as a problem with using CivII to do something it wasn't intended to. I mean, really, did the United States stop being a part of English civilisation with the Declaration of Independence? I certainly don't think so (though one might argue that the Capital got moved sometime early in the 20th century). In short wargame scenarios (2194, etc.), this isn't a problem - nor in "upwardly mobile" scenarios (Colonies, frex.) - but if a nation-state is seen as being the embodiement of a civilisation, then there's bound to be problems.

Someday I might get around to doing a global-scale scenario about the rise of Latin Civilisation after the dark ages...

Yeah. Someday.

[Exile]

Good point, Apologist, and that was precisely what I had in mind when I grouped the scandinavian countries, Holland, and Austria together in Imperialism 1870 as one civ, and the Austro-Hungarians with the Germans in the Age of War scenario. In the context of the Civ2 game, I feel that these nations were part of a sub-economy within the larger European economy, and, as such, could be considered as a whole unit. Additionally, there were political, social, and linguistic considerations that linked these nation states together into the player positions in the scenarios.

The issue of eqating a Civ2 civilization with the idea of the nation state is a topic for a thread all by itself.

[Henrik]

I'd set the barbarian level to wrath (or whatever they call the uber difficult level that's not normally accesible in the game). Barbarians will allways attack the most mighty civ, right?

Barbarian wrath spawns 20+ units at a time I believe, with the unit slots adjusted that should make for nice rebel armies... (even though it wouldnt be your own armies turning against you it'd be as close as you might get...) These barbaroians would also land via ships in italy most likely...

Alternatively have a very agressive rebel civ, give it loads of money and generate diplos from time to time who can bribe cities and their reciding armies. (that civ probably wouldn't be as agressive as a barbarian one though).

[Henrik]

I see you posted while I was typing exile ;-o

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Henrik
I'd set the barbarian level to wrath (or whatever they call the uber difficult level that's not normally accesible in the game). Barbarians will allways attack the most mighty civ, right?

Barbarian wrath spawns 20+ units at a time I believe, with the unit slots adjusted that should make for nice rebel armies... (even though it wouldnt be your own armies turning against you it'd be as close as you might get...) These barbaroians would also land via ships in italy most likely...

The problem with that solution, IMHO, is that you can't control WHEN and WHERE it happens!

[Henrik]

It'll allways happen where there is space, ie in the perimiter of your empire. It wont' happen for the first # of turns as I recall, but I'll have to look that up. Anyway barbarian activity is set by which turn it is as much as which techs you have as I recall.

[Cyrion]

Hmm, then there might be a way to control the time of happening by giving a tech by events, maybe...

Sounds interesting...

[Civfan]

Originally posted by Exile
I've been toying with the idea of creating my own "Roman Centuries" scenario for some months, but it's now on hold.

The one problem I can't seem to resolve is the "Rebellious Legions" thing. At the end of the Republic period, and then again in the 4th century, Roman military forces turned against each other, marched all over the Mediterranean world, and usually finished up by marching on Rome, whereupon a new Emperor was established, and things went back to normal . . . until the next time.

I haven't yet found a way to simulate this. Until I do, I'm not going to start work on it.

Btw, the ideas in this thread WILL be used if the damn thing ever comes to fruition.

Was just thinking about this and had an idea for people who work the bolts of the civ2 engine.

The move every unit to this location event, can't this be modified to say something such as

all units in a region owning to the civ, change to this new or different civ?

[Exile]

Not w/MGE.

[Stefan Härtel]

You could simulate the succession of a popular ruler by an unpopular ruler by having a civ with fundamentalist govt at the beginning, but giving this civ, assumed it is the human player, a new govt tech, for example democracy or communism, which he will likely switch to (make house rules if necessary). Happiness will all of the sudden be an issue (painful especially if he doesn't have any happiness WoW's or is limited in other ways), and maybe slaves will revolt (nuclear meltdowns).

Another way of simulating this would be by giving the civ a democratic government for the popular ruler. Then make a hapiness WoW obsolete (or better more than that so unrests will be impossible to fight within one turn). After two consecutive turns in unrest, the democratic government will fall. Do not give the player the Democracy tech, but rather that of a primitive government (Monarchy, Republic, or none, so Despotism is the only choice). This will guarantee economic downfall.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Exile
Good point, Apologist, and that was precisely what I had in mind when I grouped the scandinavian countries, Holland, and Austria together in Imperialism 1870 as one civ, and the Austro-Hungarians with the Germans in the Age of War scenario. In the context of the Civ2 game, I feel that these nations were part of a sub-economy within the larger European economy, and, as such, could be considered as a whole unit. Additionally, there were political, social, and linguistic considerations that linked these nation states together into the player positions in the scenarios.

The issue of eqating a Civ2 civilization with the idea of the nation state is a topic for a thread all by itself.

one that got debated quite a lot during the pre-civ3 debates over which civs should be in, and whether there should be unique civ attributes. And i think there was a similar debate recently on RON.

It always comes up - cause the games are ABOUT civilization, but essentially we play STATES (civilizations dont have rulers, declare war, etc)